They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."

Lsherm:They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."

Amos Quito:Lsherm: They kind of like the fact the problem is hard to solve because it gives you a lever to say we have to make these deep reforms in consumer culture, which I personally would like to see," said Keith.

Hey, a problem solved is a problem solved. And at the end of the day, if you can't push through changes in consumer culture that haven't ever succeeded in all of human history, then maybe alternative solutions aren't a bad direction to go in. It doesn't necessarily have to be re-freezing the arctic, as long as we come up with an alternative energy source that will continue to meet our ever-growing demand, or maybe a combination of the two.

It's years in the future regardless. But we've been re-routing water for millennia, so it's not that far a jump to re-routing solar radiation. It's been proposed for years, but we're always getting closer to actually being able to do it. The minute someone comes up with a super cheap manner of doing it, someone is going to say "hold my beer and watch this."

That usually works out well.

Usually not. However, I don't think the US will be jumping the gun on this one. I could see China or Russia doing it, though.

Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

GAT_00:Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.

robodog:GAT_00: Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.

They wouldn't mix. Coal soot doesn't make it out of the trophosphere, whereas the sulfur dioxide is pumped into the stratosphere which strongly amplifies the effects.

Scientists have long theorized that injecting reflective particles of some kind into the high atmosphere could reduce the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth's surface and compensate for the greenhouse effect. High CO2 levels would continue to trap heat, but with less energy coming in to begin with, temperatures on the surface would go down.

Hmmm...what kind of particles are we talking about here....and how do you propose to keep them airborne? Pesky gravity and all. If you just keep doing it...(and i can't imagine you could do it on a scale to make a difference) wont the particles just float to the ground everywhere? Covering the seas and destroying the phytoplankton, thus killing off oxygen to the rest of the planet??

I was wondering how long it would take for this sort of article to hit the press. After wikileaks, they knew it was just a matter of time for the secret UN chemtrail program to be discovered. This enviro change nonsense is a false front to make the other darker parts of the program easier to cover up again.

I've met David Keith on a couple of occasions. He really is a mad scientist, but has a great perspective on the whole geo-engineering thing: it's one of those tools you want to keep in your pocket in case the warming ends up on the very high end of the projections, or higher, and you've exhausted every other tool at your disposal and none of them are working fast enough.

In that case, you study the geo-engineering now so you have a better idea of what the side effects might be if implemented.

The most fascinating insight is how cheaply this could be done. It will only take one highly developed, very wealthy nation to start losing trillions of dollars in heavily developed coastline to rising waters.

Then that country, most likely US - is just going to do it.

Dust the atmosphere, damn the consequences.

/Given that sea levels are not only rising, but the rate of sea level increase is itself rising, I give it 20 years. Ready the high-altitude drone-dusters.

robodog:GAT_00: Believe it or not, there's reason to believe we could simply make a very long tube that reaches into the stratosphere, which holds itself aloft by a kite mechanism. Up that tube you pump sulfur dioxide, which could offset much of the CO2 warming. It's relatively cheap, though it would have to be continuous, the SO2 would be broken down by I believe UV as well as normal atmospheric reactions. But it's doable with modern materials science. It's also thought not to have significant effects besides cooling, though that's obviously unproved.

H2SO4 would be the problem with that little plan, though if we could eliminate coal use it might not be a significant increase.

Acid snow, building up and up.... well, who cares. It could be DECADES before it kills us all!

Anthracite:We have not been on this planet recording ourselves to look over all the data. HOWEVER the stuff we have found shows this place was pretty toasty a few million years ago... So here we go again.

Midwest was a sea bed... Dichotomous Earth. Look it up.

Gosh, what a brilliant insight. You should tell NASA, NOAA & the USGS. I'll be they hadn't thought of that.